What does one do when a sitting president threatens to deploy the military into America’s own cities? Recent weeks saw former President Donald Trump suggest sending the National Guard—or even active-duty soldiers—to Democratic-controlled cities such as Chicago and New York. He said it was necessary to combat crime and homelessness. But in Chicago, the suggestion has been strongly opposed by leaders at all points on the spectrum.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, joined by local officials, faith groups, and community advocates, has been clear: there is no crisis requiring military boots on city streets. “What President Trump is doing is unprecedented and unwarranted. It is illegal. It is unconstitutional. And it is un-American,” he said. Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton agreed, adding that as Trump paints a picture of chaos, crime in Chicago has actually been declining.
The statistics support them. Homicides in Chicago have declined over 30 percent from last year, and overall crime is in decline. Police and community officials emphasize the city already operates closely with federal agencies such as the FBI and DEA, drawing on improved training, partnerships, and community violence prevention programs—not troops with rifles. Nevertheless, Trump still refers to Chicago as a “killing field” and insists only federal troops can impose order.
State officials say his proposal falls short legally. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul has clarified that the National Guard typically reports to the governor, and federalizing it involves satisfying stringent requirements—like suppressing a rebellion or reestablishing order when state troops can’t. The Insurrection Act might be one way, but Raoul and others affirm that those criteria simply have not been met. He notes Chicago already benefits from federal partnerships that are working, making a military deployment unnecessary and dangerous.
Another major roadblock is the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from acting as civilian law enforcement unless specifically authorized by law. Legal experts warn that stretching these exceptions for political showmanship not only bends the rules but also threatens civil liberties and the separation of powers.
Not only has pushback come from politicians, however. Chicago business leaders assert that the threat of troops in the streets smirches the city’s image, drives away investors, and threatens economic stability. Community activists and clergy argue that militarization of the neighborhoods would escalate rather than reduce conflict and hit hardest among vulnerable groups such as immigrants and homeless residents.
Not all are opposed, however. South Side Pastor Corey Brooks and businessman Willie Wilson have been among those to express support for deploying the Guard to quell violent crime. Their perspective is the exception, however.
Most city officials, including Mayor Brandon Johnson, contend the priority should be on reinvesting in housing and violence prevention programs, not putting on a show of military might. Latino leaders have also warned that having troops present would degrade trust and ratchet up tensions in already heavily policed neighborhoods.
Crime statistics speak louder than political speeches. Crime overall in Chicago is 13 percent down, murders are 31 percent down, and shootings are 36 percent down. Of major U.S. cities, Chicago is below the lowest for violent crime. For all critics of Trump’s plan, this makes the deployment of troops even more unwarranted.
But the problem is not only about numbers. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin and other lawmakers caution that converting the military into a police force domestically without the approval of local communities sets a hazardous precedent. It risks undermining democracy, dismantling civil rights, and harming the delicate trust between police and the community.
At its essence, this battle is about something greater than public safety. It’s about who controls the cities, whether the military should be in peacetime roles, and whether the power of the presidency can usurp local authority. Chicago’s leaders for now are holding the line, declining what they view as a power grab and protecting their city’s independence as well as citizens’ rights.